Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Re-thinking water scarcity: Can science and technology solve
the global water crisis?
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas
Abstract
This paper provides examples from the last fifty years of scientific and technological innovations that provide relatively easy,
quick and affordable means of addressing key water management issues. Scientific knowledge and technological innovation
can help open up previously closed decision-making systems. Four of these tools are discussed in this paper: a) the
opportunities afforded by virtual water trade; b) the silent revolution for beneficial use of groundwater; c) salt water
desalination; and finally, d) the use of remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS). Together these advances
are changing the options available to address water and food security that have been predominant for centuries in the
minds of most water decision-makers.
Keywords: Virtual water, Desalination, Intensive use of groundwater, Water footprint, Water security, Remote sensing, GIS and Internet.
1. Introduction
Despite all the talk of a looming water crisis, should a
water crisis occur, the crisis would be felt first and foremost
by the poorest sectors of the population, dependent for their
livelihoods on rain-fed or irrigated water in arid and
semi-arid regions, where 52% of the world’s population
lives (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006: 338). Yet when the water
crisis is discussed in relation to the MDGs the focus tends
to be on Target 10 of Goal 1, i.e., to halve the number of
people without affordable access to water and sanitation.
However, if we were to address key questions in relation to
water use through irrigation, by definition we would be
focusing on 70% of the world’s water use, and in particular
in arid and semi-arid areas, where about 40% of the world’s
irrigated land is located (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006: 263 and
270).1 Any advances made in irrigation will translate into
gains by other sectors — which often have higher economic
returns or added value like industry, public water supply and
sanitation or environmental services — which at present
are not benefiting globally from water captured by irrigation.
This paper looks at recent advances in science and technology to address water ‘scarcity’. Although the root cause of
Elena Lopez-Gunn is an Alcoa Research Fellow at the Centre for
Environmental Policy and Governance, LSE (UK), London.
M. Ramón Llamas is Emeritus Professor at the Complutense University,
Madrid, Spain.
1
However, rain-fed farming represents 82% of cropland and produces
only 60% of the world’s agricultural production.
‘water scarcity’ is mainly due to a crisis of water governance
(UN, 2003; Rogers et al., 2006), this paper does not address
water governance per se, instead it looks at four options which
are inexpensive, already available and accessible to highlight
options and choices already being taken by different countries
to allocate water between competing uses. These latest advances
in science and technology can, for example, help address
the use of water by irrigation in arid and semi-arid regions
of the world in order to help achieve the MDGs, in particular
the MDG on combating poverty and hunger.
This paper will also focus on inexpensive and feasible
options which currently exist to address the ‘looming water
crisis’, by highlighting recent advances in understanding
due to either new data or new perspectives (i.e., the case
of virtual water and the silent revolution of groundwater)
and technological innovations (like desalination and the use
of GIS and remote sensing).
The scope of this paper is to focus on four concrete and key
options to address this water ‘crisis’, which are cheap, feasible
and most important, already available; first, it emphasizes the
key strategic relevance of virtual water and a country’s water
footprint, particularly for arid countries; second, it looks at
the silent revolution of groundwater use, third, desalination2
2
Water re-use and rain harvesting are not discussed in this paper,
although these are appropriate technologies that can have and are having
a certain impact in both agriculture and water and sanitation, mainly in
developing countries. We are not dealing with other issues like solar
energy, geothermics because — although these are under debate — at
present these are not cheap or easily available.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA.
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
Table 2. Global water and energy in calories for meat,
livestock and cereals
Table 1. List of Millennium Development Goals
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
2: Achieve universal primary education
3: Promote gender equality and empower women
4: Reduce child mortality
5: Improve maternal health
6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7: Ensure environmental sustainability
8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development
229
Meat
Global water use
Global energy use
29%
Livestock
Cereals
17%
23%
51%
15%
Source: Modified from Chapagain et al. (2005).
Table 3. Comparative table on the amount of water needed to
produce 1 unit of specific products
and finally — although briefly — the potential of new
technologies from the information age, like remote sensing,
GIS and internet. The paper discusses these advances in
knowledge and technological innovation at the global level
which are discussed in depth for the case of Spain in a
forthcoming paper.
Some theoretically relevant advances that are currently
under discussion are not considered, e.g., biofuels, the
genetic engineering to obtain salinity and drought resistant
crops, because we have preferred to comment only on
factors that are easily available and relatively cheap.
2. Virtual water and water footprint
Virtual water is the amount of water necessary to produce
a good or a service (Allan, 2003; Allan, 2006; Allan,
2007). This is a key advance in addressing the current water
crisis because it calculates, fairly accurately, the water
embedded in the production of any good or service. For
example, 1 kg wheat equals 1,000 kg water (or 1 m3),
whilst 1 kg beef equals 20,000 kg water (or 20 m3)
(UNESCO-WWAP, 2006: 257). This, in turn, provides key
new information to policy makers, e.g., Finance or
Economic Development departments in poor developing
countries, which are ultimately central to decision-making
processes on water governance. New information can open
up the range of options being considered.
At present, it is calculated that the total global water
resources are about 110,000 km3/year, of which green
water i.e., water in the soil is calculated at 70,000 km3/year,
whereas blue water i.e., water in rivers and in groundwater
accounts for 40,000 km3/year (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006:
250). Of all global water available (blue and green),
Zimmer and Renault (2003) have calculated that the total
amount of water needed globally to produce food is
5,200 km3/yr. This amount is similar in magnitude to the
6,000 km3 estimated by the United Nations (UN, 2003) as
the water needed to produce food for 6,000 million people
on the planet. Yet, it is important to remember that the total
amount of water in the hydrological cycle is 110,000 Mm3,
and humankind at present uses below 10% of annual
rainfall, i.e., of blue and green water.
Out of the 5,200 km3/yr used to produce food globally,
according to Zimmer and Renault (2003), 29% of water
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
Product
Bottle of beer (250 ml)
Glass of milk (200 ml)
Bread slice (30 gr.)
Cotton T-shirt (500 gr.)
A4 sheet of paper (80 gr/m2)
Beef hamburger (150 gr)
Pair of leather shoes
Beef meat (1 kg)
Lamb meat (1 kg)
Cereals (1 kg)
Chicken meat (1 kg)
Water (in 1,000 ml)
necessary for production
75
200
40
4,100
10
2,400
8,000
15,000
10,000
1,500
6,000
Source: Llamas (2005) from Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004).
is used to produce meat, and 17% to produce meat
products.3 Cereals only account for 23%. However, from
the point of view of energy in calories in meat and cereals
the situation is quite different; cereals represent 51% of
energy value and meat and livestock products only 15%,
with the threshold for malnourishment at 2,000 calories/day.
Yet economic and social factors are often the drivers in
virtual water trade, through trade in agricultural and
processed food products. Estimates on the amount of water
required for the production of each good are complex, and
are being developed at the moment (Chapagain et al.,
2005). Meanwhile estimates on virtual water for food or
industrial products are still in their infancy. What is new in
the twenty first century is the scale of trade due to increased
production through technological advances, and cheap
transport — particularly by sea. The cost per tonne of
product transported by sea is about 1 to 3 euros per tonne
or 0.1 to 0.3 euro cents per kg. It is easier — and cheaper
— to transport 1,000 tonnes of wheat, than the 1 million m3
needed to produce that same wheat (see below Table 4).
Thanks to virtual water, many water scarce countries have
avoided a crisis, particularly in politically unstable regions
like North Africa and the Middle East. The only prerequisite is that these countries must be rich enough to have
the purchasing power needed in international markets
(Allan, 2007).
3
The calculation for meat and processed livestock products includes
animal feed.
230
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
Table 5. Global water footprint of meat and vegetarian diets
Table 4. Average value of some vegetable produce
Product
Wheat
Barley
Corn
Tomatoes
Horticultural products
Sunflower
Virgin olive oil
Coffee
Fresh grapes
Average value (US$/tonne)
125–150
134
125
856
757
294
2,036
2,118
1,160
Source: After Appendix IV in Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004).
There are some data which have to be analyzed further
because of their potential implications. For example, it
would be useful to further explore the geographical
variations in the productivity of virtual water. According
to UNESCO-WWAP (2006: 255) the concept of water
productivity is now widely accepted as a measure of
performance in agricultural water use. This points to the
efficiency gains still to be obtained from irrigation. First,
while irrigation currently withdraws about 2,300 km3 of
freshwater per year from rivers and aquifers, only 900 km3
is effectively consumed by crops (UNESCO-WWAP,
2006: 250). Second, strategic choices have to be made by
different countries on whether water is used to grow
high-value crops, or low-value crops like cereals or alfalfa.
i.e., whether to divert water from the production of lowvalue staple crops to higher-value cash crops such as
vegetables, fruit and flowers (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006)
(see Table 4).
Knowing the virtual water budgets, together with the
economic value of the goods and services of each country,
provides interesting information in relation to how green
and blue water is used and possible implications for both
productive and environmental water uses.
Many countries, particularly in the developing world still
have to address questions related to food security, and
particularly so in arid and semi-arid regions, where
droughts can trigger hunger and also potentially destabilize
or even topple governments in power. However, these mass
starvations more often have a political origin than a
physical cause, as highlighted by Brunel (1989). Food
security can often be ensured through either self sufficiency
in food production, or a mixture of own production and
imports from other countries. This political choice, i.e.,
whether to opt for self sufficiency or an open trade
approach, has substantial implications in terms of potential
water savings, water infrastructure, rain-fed agriculture and
trade in agricultural products (de Fraiture et al., 2004). Due
to their lack of capital, authors like Hofwegen (2004)
suggest that their safest bet to ensure food security is to
improve the productivity of rain-fed agriculture — or green
water as discussed above — since their poverty leaves the
Diet
Population
km3/year (blue + green)
Vegetarian
Red meat
Vegetarian
Red meat
7.000.106
7.000.106
10.000.106
10.000.106
~6,000
~12,000
~8,000
~15,000
Source: Llamas (2005a).
choice of building large irrigation infrastructure and/or
agricultural trade beyond their reach.
The sum of all water (blue and green) and all imported
water (i.e., virtual water) required to meet the needs for
goods and services for a specific area or collectivity is
known as ‘water footprint’.4 This concept was developed
by Hoekstra and Hung (2002) and it is used as an indicator
of water used by an individual, a collectivity or a country5
(Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2006). It is now possible to
calculate water footprints with acceptable accuracy. For
example, about 90% of water needed for total livelihoods
survival is for food. A vegetarian diet represents about
800 m3/year, whereas a red meat diet is equivalent to about
1,500 m3/year (Table 5).
In the concept of virtual water used by Chapagain et al.,
(2005) virtual water that is exported is not added. Yet,
exports can play a vital role in that country’s economy,
since it generates the capital that can allow the country
to equally import virtual water as other agricultural or
industrial products. Therefore, a true water budget for a
country should consider both exports and imports of
embedded water.
Chapagain et al. (2005) calculates that the current total
annual global water footprint for humanity is 7,500 Mm3,
although this figure is likely to increase in the coming
years. This is a difference of about 1,500 Mm3 compared
to the amount of water used to produce food mentioned
above because it also incorporates public water supply and
industrial use. In any case, it is important to remember
that the total amount of rainfall on the land surface, i.e.,
the sum of blue and green water is about 115,000 Mm3. In
other words, the water demand from the whole of humanity
is well below 10% of annual precipitation. In Llamas
(2005a) it was shown that the water footprint of Spain, Italy
and the USA is similar — approximately 2,300 m3/person/
yr, whilst India’s water footprint is less than 1,000 m3/
person/yr. This is mainly due to the vegetarian diet in India6
and its lower level of industrialization. Yet consumption
preferences change with income and normally people
4
This concept is similar to the concept of ecological footprint (Rees,
1996), and more recently carbon footprinting.
5
It can be defined as the volume necessary for the production of goods
and services by one person or group of people.
6
See Table 1 for amount of water needed to produce 1 kg of cereal vs.
1 tonne of meat.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
Table 6. Individual countries water footprint
Country
Spain
Italy
USA
India
China
Water footprint (m3/person/year)
2,300
2,300
2,300
1,000
700
Source: Various.
consume more meat as their incomes improve. Globally
about one-third of all cereals is used for animal feed — a
shift away from livestock feeding on natural pastures
towards a dependence on cereals.7 As diets diversify and
become healthier and better balanced, the demand for fresh
vegetables and fruits increases. Unfortunately, these goods
are produced under intensive farming methods, including
the use of irrigation for year-round production. The oil
crops sector is one of the most dynamic in the world. For
example, since the 1970s, oil crops have provided 20% of
the increase in caloric intake in developing countries,
equally the new push for biofuels is likely to have a knockon effect on all crops.8 Equally the predicted rise in biofuels
is likely to impact global food prices and compete for water
resources.
Food security today is much more related to economic
capacity and trade than to physical water scarcity. This shift
in perception forces a re-consideration of the main
problems of food security aside from pure physical scarcity
and technological fixes. The main issues that need to be
addressed globally in relation to food security are: the
hidden monopolies that currently exist in the World Trade
Organization (WTO), the potential threat of political
embargoes and the need for domestic social changes to be
fulfilled.
As exports grow, there are concerns about the rules of
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and
the World Trade Organization (WTO). Ramirez Vallejo
(2006) argues that it is not sensible to apply pure economic
theory to explain virtual water trade. Many factors
influence water trade like bilateral trade agreements, direct
or indirect subsidies, technological innovation, or the
macroeconomic policies of exporting and importing
countries. Most virtual water trade is not explicitly or
7
On a positive note, meat demand has been shifting towards poultry, with
the world consuming more poultry meat than bovine meat, which is
positive for water footprints, since poultry has a much better conversion
rate of cereals into meat (two to one) than cattle.
8
Livestock production globally accounts for some 40% of the gross total
value of agricultural production, and its role is continually growing as
consumers adopt a diet richer in meat and dairy products.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
231
directly motivated by lack of water or food security. In fact,
the analysis of food trade shows that most trade occurs
between countries that have substantial water resources,
indicating clearly that factors other than water drive
international food trade (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006).
Trade in virtual water depends largely on WTO rules,
which are in the process of being re-drafted. These rules
will have important geopolitical consequences, e.g., in
terms of power shifts, and some politicians — particularly
in developing countries — are uneasy about trade in virtual
water since it could lead to increased dependency towards
exporting countries or large multinational companies and
supermarkets, which in turn could develop monopolies on
global food trade. Rogers and Ramirez-Vallejo (2003) have
made a forecast of the potential evolution of the virtual
water market for the year 2020 in case of market
liberalization under the WTO. The dominance of the USA
would be even greater under market liberalization
scenarios, whilst the role of Latin America would also
increase substantially. Yet, for the period 1993–1998, 75%
of trade in virtual water was between OECD countries and
was mainly driven by economic factors, not by local water
scarcity.
A key element in all these future scenarios is the price
of blue water, which at present, is generally well below its
real cost. Reducing the gap between prices currently
charged and the real cost of water — as demanded by the
concept of full cost recovery embodied in the European
Water Framework Directive, could have a substantial
impact on virtual water trade. So called ‘perverse’
subsidies, i.e., those that are bad for the economy and the
environment (Myers and Kent, 1998) are however a
difficult and widespread problem across the world. These
subsidies are difficult to eliminate once granted due
to the rent-seeking behaviour of both users and the
administration itself, which develop clientelistic
relationships. For example, according to Allan (2007)
American agriculture is over-producing strategic food
commodities whilst not reflecting the fiscal impacts of
subsidies in their export prices. Thus, global trade in virtual
water is much more dependent on global trade policy than
national water policy aimed at increased irrigation. Authors
like Williams (2004) believe that the concept of virtual
water is useful to help re-define agricultural policy framed
in the wider context of food security and global food trade.
Finally, some regions in the world live in conditions
of extreme poverty, on less than US$ 1 per day. In these
countries the majority of the population is rural and
depends on subsistence farming; virtual water or importing
food without giving due consideration to the staple diet of
the country and to the potential impact on local agricultural
markets could do more harm than good. The combination
of high production costs due to lack of technology and the
potential flooding by cheap and often subsidized products
from global trade could substantially harm local subsistence
markets.
232
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
3. The silent revolution: The intensive use of
groundwater
In terms of re-considering physical water scarcity and the
need to question ‘technological fixes’ largely spearheaded
by central or national government, the next great advance
is the silent revolution — groundwater use. The silent
revolution has happened in the last half century in
practically all arid or semi-arid regions across the world. A
first wave took place in California, Italy, Mexico and Spain
followed by a second wave in Asia, with a large part of
India and the North China plains to parts of the Middle
East and North Africa (Shah et al., 2007). It is called a
revolution because it has led to dramatic changes in water
use and food policy in these regions. It is also called ‘silent’
because it has been mainly undertaken by millions of small
farmers, with little control and planning on the part of
the government administration (Fornés et al., 2005;
Llamas and Martínez-Santos, 2005b; Llamas, 2006b). It is
estimated that global groundwater abstraction rose from
a base level of 100–150 Mm3 in 1950 to about 950–
1,000 Mm3 in 2000. In turn farmers abstract 900 Mm3 of
water to generate $210–230 billion, with a gross productivity of about $0.23–26 per m3 abstracted (Shah et al.,
2007: 396).
The strategic importance of groundwater can be fully
appreciated when considering specific data; globally 25%
of global irrigation depends on groundwater, although in
arid and semi arid areas this percentage goes up to 60%
of irrigated agriculture. In terms of hectares the official
number is estimated at 69 m ha, although other studies
indicate that the actual figure might be closer to 100 m ha
(from 30 m ha in 1950) (Shah et al., 2007; UNESCOWWAP, 2006). What is also highly relevant is that most of
this land and 80% of groundwater abstracted is in some of the
most heavily populated countries in the world like Bangladesh,
Pakistan, India and China; or otherwise economically
crucial for global food trade, like the United States.
Considering that by 2030, over 60% of the population
will live in urban areas, claiming an increasing share of
water abstraction (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006: 254) it is
crucial to appreciate the role of groundwater in public
water supply. It is estimated that groundwater systems
globally provide 25 to 40% of the world’s drinking water
(Morris et al., 2003). Another estimate calculates that more
than half the world’s population relies on groundwater for
its drinking water supply (Coughanowr, 1994). In 2004
more than 2 billion people relied on groundwater for their
daily supply (Kemper, 2004). In terms of scale,
groundwater is crucially important in the world’s mega
cities and hundreds of other major cities which make
significant use of groundwater (Foster et al., 1998). In
Europe for example, a substantial part of the population
depends on groundwater for public water supply. Finally,
groundwater is a useful back up in water supply gaps
during long dry seasons and droughts, offering drought
resilience. Managed aquifer recharge, shallow groundwater
management, and rain water harvesting and recharge can,
in fact, provide more resilient (and safe) drinking water
systems in water short communities, especially relevant in
the context of climate change.
The main reason for the huge explosion in the use
of groundwater resources is technological innovation.
The introduction of increasingly cheap tube well and
mechanical pump technology and its wide availability has
facilitated a social revolution in the use of groundwater,
which has produced great socio-economic benefits (see
Plate 1) (Giordano and Villholth, 2007). This is probably
because of the autonomy and empowerment groundwater
offers since it can be developed by individual farmers or
small groups. Although operating costs might be higher
(due to e.g., electricity costs), initial capital investment
is much lower per irrigated hectare. Users can pump
groundwater when needed, with precise application (e.g.,
when crops need water most), which can greatly increase
yields (UNESCO-WWAP, 2007). Groundwater has been
vital to yield and production increases, and in turn, has
helped to reduce rural poverty (Moench, 2003). Intensive
groundwater use has allowed rural communities to undergo
a social transition thanks to improved farm incomes, the
education of a younger generation and the migration of
most of the family to nearby cities. This is, for example,
evident in the Middle East where permanent shifts have
occurred (Allan, 2006), and in South Asia where there are
flexible and diverse adaptive part-time modes of rural–
urban interaction.
There is some evidence that groundwater in fact
promotes greater interpersonal, intergender, interclass and
more spatial equity than surface water use (Shah et al.,
2007: 396). This is particularly the case in the use of
shallow groundwater wells. It is estimated that groundwater
is critical to the livelihoods and food security of
approximately 1.2–1.5 billion rural households in the
poorest regions in Asia and Africa (Shah et al., 2007).
Groundwater provides flexible, on demand, irrigation to
support vibrant wealth-creating agriculture (Shah et al.,
2007: 395). In India it has allowed ‘small’ irrigation to
truly revolutionise agriculture in the country. This has been
achieved mainly through the abstraction of 200 Mm3/yr,
from about 20 million wells to irrigate about 50 million
hectares, i.e., 60% of the land (Shah, 2005). In a recent
report of the World Bank, this situation has been described
as a ‘quiet revolution’ (Briscoe, 2005). These efforts have
been mainly undertaken and financed by small farmers or
small municipalities, and the pattern extends to most of
South East Asia, including Pakistan and Bangladesh (Shah
et al., 2006). In extremely poor countries, with less than
1$/per capita/per day, — where 500 million people live —
the NGO International Development Enterprise (or IDE)
created in the last 20 years a simple pedal operated pump
(Polak, 2005), which has allowed these areas to evolve in
a relatively short space of time to a diesel or electric pump.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
233
Plate 1. Technological changes generating a silent groundwater revolution.
Figure 1. Growth in groundwater use in selected countries (author’s estimates).
Source: Shah (2004).
Meanwhile, in mid-range countries, a potential initial
solution will be the intensive use of groundwater (Llamas,
2005b; Allan, 2007).
Therefore groundwater is a key resource often
underestimated in global water budgets in helping meet
the Millennium Development Goal on poverty and
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
malnutrition. This is mainly due to its affordability, and low
abstraction cost even without ‘perverse’ energy subsidies.
Abstraction costs usually vary between 0.02–0.20 US$/m3.
It has allowed significantly ‘more crops and jobs per drop’
than in-surface water irrigation systems, which in turn has
helped the socio-economic transition necessary for other
234
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
sectors in the economy to take off. Meanwhile in developed
countries, more concerned with the green agenda than the
brown agenda of environmental issues, the motto is
changing to ‘more cash and nature per drop’ in the context
of EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. It is important
however to note the cash generated per hectare in different
contexts, for example, in Spain 60,000 euros/ha can be
produced whereas in India, production concentrates on
staple foods like cereals and rice, i.e., subsistence farming.
However, there is no reason why the pattern adopted in
Spain and other countries would not be adopted in the
future by countries like India or China, which have shown
a spectacular growth in the last decades.
Yet the main threat to the silent revolution is not physical
scarcity once again, but lack of water governance. Often
regulatory frameworks have lagged behind the quick take
off of groundwater use (Wegerich, 2006). Even if
regulatory frameworks existed or were developed, their
implementation has often been ineffective in controlling
and rationalizing groundwater use (Koundouri, 2004).
Most regulators have limited understanding and poor data
on groundwater situation and value (Llamas, 2003). It is
difficult to say if groundwater governance is better in arid
or semi-arid countries where groundwater is privately
owned (for example, California, Texas, India, or Chile) or
in countries where it is public dominion (for example,
Mexico, Libya, and Spain).
In the course of this revolution there have been some
significant casualties, mainly environmental. The use of
groundwater is so economically salient, that often serious
external environmental impacts have been ignored. It is
easier for the authorities to turn a blind eye to its chaotic
and irrational management due to its key strategic
economic importance for agriculture, public water supply
and industrial use.
This attitude, which has tended to ignore or disregard
groundwater use in water planning, has been called
‘hydroschizophrenia’, where groundwater management
was considered as totally separate from surface water, thus
practically ignoring the concept of the hydrological cycle.
The dominant view extended to the majority of the public
is the ‘hydromyth’ that groundwater is a fragile resource
(López-Gunn and Llamas, 2000; Custodio, 2002).
Paraphrasing Hamlet: the main strategy adopted is to
perceive groundwater as ‘frailty, frailty, thy name is
groundwater’. Yet this conveniently ignores its widespread
use and its enormous socio-economic significance, thus
evading the public duty of regulating a key strategic
common pool resource.
Groundwater is now a key political issue in many areas
of the world due to its strategic socio-economic significance
for both irrigation and public water supply and increasingly
its competing rival uses like industry or mining. Yet in
many countries monitoring of groundwater use has been
minimal, with most government and water agencies taking
little or no action to assess and control groundwater use.
4. Desalination: Potential and limitations
Desalination is one of the most obvious technological
advances in relation to access to ‘new’ water resources.
Desalination is used mainly in arid and semi-arid areas
either located inland where the only available water source
is saline or brackish groundwater, or in coastal areas.
Globally, about 50% of global desalination takes place in
the Gulf, followed by North America (16%), Europe (13%),
Asia (11%) Africa (5%) and the Caribbean (3%), whilst
South America and Australia each accounted for about 1%
of the global desalination volume in 2002 according to the
International Desalination Association (UNESCO-WWAP,
2006). However, these trends are changing, with other
countries considering desalination, particularly for public
water supply like China, Mexico, Turkey and North Africa
(Global Water Intelligence, 2007). In terms of the uses for
desalinated water, municipalities are the largest users
(63%), followed by industry use (25%). Additionally —
and in view of climate change — desalination is often a
key strategic option for many island environments. In terms
of future uses, the IDA predicts new demands for
desalination for recreation and tourism, the military, and
irrigated agriculture (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006).
Technologically, in recent years there has been progress
thanks to chemical engineering in membrane technology
(Reverse Osmosis) (Service, 2006). This has allowed the
removal of all impurities from water at a reasonable (and
decreasing) cost to meet the increased demands of watershort areas. According to the UNESCO-WWAP (2006),
the contracted capacity of desalination plants is 34.2
million m3/day converting principally seawater (59%) and
brackish water (23%).
The main reason for the increased consideration of
desalination is that the cost of producing desalinated water
has fallen dramatically in the past two decades. Equally,
according to Voutchkov (2007) the cost of water production
worldwide (from rivers, lakes and aquifers) has increased
by 50% to 100% mainly due to limited availability, water
quality degradation and more stringent drinking water
regulations. During the same time costs for reverse osmosis
desalination decreased by 50% to 100% as a result of
breakthroughs in technology, energy use, engineering
innovation and economies of scale. This means desalination
is increasingly becoming an ‘affordable’ technology, since
the energy cost to desalinize one cubic meter of sea
water has decreased from almost 20 kwh to less than 4 kwh
for a large desalination plant in full-time operation.
This is generally the case with no hidden subsidies. The
energy consumed to drive the conversion is a significant
part of the cost and ranges from 4 to 15 kWh/m3 depending
on factors such as the technique used, the production
rate of the facility, and the quality of the equipment.
(UNESCO-WWAP, 2006: 150). The cost of desalinated
water is about US$ 0.5/m3 for large plants working almost
continuously. The price is lower if desalinating brackish
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
groundwater, where costs decrease to US$ 0.10–0.20/m3.
In most cases this cost is affordable for urban water supply
in cities near the coast and also for irrigating cash crops.
At present, desalination is mainly an option considered
in arid and semi-arid areas, and particularly in wealthy
regions like parts of Australia and California. In the case
of Australia, the policy adopted is one of ‘security through
diversity’ (McCann, 2007). The desalination market is
currently estimated at US$ 150 million a year and according
to the private sector predicted to expand by 35% per year
for the next four years. These predictions are likely since
about 85% of the population in Australia lives on the coast
and the other 152 municipalities have a small population.
Furthermore, plans for desalinated water are being revised
upwards. For example, the Gold coast plans for 50 ml/day
by 2050 have now been revised to 125 ml/day on a request
from Queensland state government, to cover the water
needs of Brisbane and south east of Queensland. Sidney
has also issued a tender for a plant in the 250 ml/day range
(Degremont/Veolia). Meanwhile, in the USA, population in
the state of California is set to increase from 36.5 to 48 million
requiring a possible 4 Mm3/day new water to be put into
supply. The California Department of Water Resources
established a US$ 50 million desalination plant programme
in 2004 aimed at assisting water utilities across the state in
implementing brackish water and seawater desalination
projects.9 By 2020 most southern Californian water utilities
are planning to supply 10 to 20% of their water from the
ocean. However, a recent study by the Pacific Institute
(Cooley et al., 2006) gives some note for caution. For
example, the desalination plant in the city of Santa Barbara
is being decommissioned for economic reasons.
Meanwhile in the United Kingdom, not traditionally
perceived as a water scarce country, due to the heavy
concentration of population in the south east, a private
water company has invested £300 million (US$ 539
million) in a reverse osmosis plant to treat water from the
tidal estuary of the River Thames to serve 900,000
customers in London, producing up to 150,000 m3/day for
the public water supply (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006).10
In developing countries like China, Turkey and Mexico
there is growing interest in desalination. For example, in
China the lack of access to traditional water sources is
making desalination an option. This is the case, for
example, in coastal north China where four coastal
provinces, which account for 25% of China’s GDP, have an
estimated demand gap of 16.5 to 25.5 billion m3/yr by
2010. In addition, new tight regulatory controls on
groundwater abstraction and the use of surface water are
9
The first round of the programme in 2005 awarded $24.5 million to 24
different desalination projects. The second round awarded $21.5 million
grants to 23 projects in June 2006 — Applied, research, pilot testing
implementation of demonstrations and full scale desalination projects.
10
At present plans for this desalination plant are pending approval by the
London Authority (Stuart Orr, personal communication)
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
235
forcing consideration of other water supply options. At
present the interest is mainly for industrial purposes,
but by 2010–2015 when convergence between cost of
desalination and municipal water tariffs is likely to happen,
there will also be interest for the public water supply. At
present the installed capacity is 380,000 m3/day, yet the
forecast for 2012–2015 is 2.5 Mm3/day (Global Water
Intelligence, 2007).
The reason why desalination has been discussed in this
paper is because it is a technology that is already providing
solutions to urban water supply in coastal areas, where
much of the world’s population currently live and many
more millions are likely to live in the coming years. It is
also a technology that could be used for irrigation of high
value crops, thus freeing up other cheaper water resources
for such uses as the public water supply of the poorest
sectors of the population, which cannot afford to pay for
desalination, and for small scale irrigation schemes.
5. The role of GIS and the internet in increasing
transparency and participation
Possibly one of the most important problems in water
conflicts is the illusory accuracy of data, and in many cases
as the saying goes: ‘Half-truths are worse than open lies’.
Yet advances in the use of the internet, GIS and remote
sensing can increase transparency and increase participation
of multiple users. This in turn can facilitate monitoring
and control a classic sign of ‘healthy’ water management
systems, which makes water managers and users mutually
accountable. Rapid developments in communication
technologies can help record and disseminate experience,
and strengthen social learning in decision-making processes,
through information, knowledge and stakeholders participation
(UNESCO-WWAP, 2006: 336). The application of satellite
information and modeling can have a substantial impact on
water resources monitoring in lower-income countries.
Generally transparency and availability of water data is
scarce. Key data where information tends to be lacking or
is most inaccurate are on the one hand, irrigated area and
types of crops and on the other, inventories of groundwater
uses and rights. Yet relatively new technologies like remote
sensing can help provide these data in a fast and affordable
way. An additional advantage in the use of GIS and remote
sensing is that it can facilitate the increased participation
of different water users and stakeholders at different levels.
For example, there is already a case in Bolivia where the
use of a GIS-based programme allowed comparison of the
efficiency of water allocation of customary uses vis-à-vis
proposed allocation arrangements based on formalising water
rights. This use of GIS in effect highlighted that the existing
process was not less efficient that the proposed changes.
GIS, internet and remote sensing can encourage
increased government transparency and make information
accessible to civil society at large. This is because GIS and
236
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
internet allow elaboration and dissemination of data to the
general public with a relatively small investment.
Information transparency can prevent corruption,
clientelism and inertia, whilst taking decisions that
sometimes are politically difficult yet necessary. It brings
about deliberative democracy in water management,
essential to achieving sound water governance (Innes and
Booher, 2000; Lowndess et al., 2001; Bulkeley and Mol,
2003).
Remote sensing, GIS and the internet are cheap,
available tools that can play a crucial role in order to
achieve a participatory management. The incorporation of
methods and techniques such as GIS, remote sensing and
other quantitative, digital or statistical forms of data can
provide a vehicle for increased participation. This is
particularly the case with new trends towards participatory
GIS research or so called Public Participation GIS (PPGIS)
with its capacity to empower by incorporating diverse
forms of local knowledge. GIS is particularly powerful
because of its visualization potential, and its ability to
communicate complex data in a user friendly, accessible
format. It also opens up decision-making since it can force
a dialogue between different types of knowledge, namely
rationalist, expert or scientific, which is often granted
greater legitimacy and other more localised, grounded and
experiential knowledge. In this case, the process itself can
become as important as the end product itself (i.e., GIS
maps) since in the production of GIS maps a dialogue can
occur e.g., with marginalised sectors of society. Through
collaborative efforts, it can help transform certain political
or institutional cultures. PPGIS can help make transparent
the constant process of negotiation and knowledge
production that is often obscured in expert systems, and
which are then often distrusted by those it is supposed to
benefit (Elwood, 2006). There are still some questions on
the digital divide i.e., the uneven distribution worldwide of
communications technology and access to, and use of
information, although hardware and software costs are
dropping increasingly.
Whereas it was once difficult to map a community, it is
now relatively easy with the use of satellite imagery and
geographic information systems. In today’s market, satellite
images are no longer expensive. This development, coupled
with a UN-HABITAT programme to provide GIS
capability in up to 1,000 cities globally, makes it feasible
to bring this technology to local authorities. The use of GIS
by local authorities, commonplace in high-income
countries, provides a basis for collecting the kinds of
spatial information needed for pro-poor governance
(UNESCO-WWAP, 2006).
6. Conclusion
This paper has shown that there are already two politically
silent events, virtual water and groundwater, which are
helping to prevent the often quoted ‘water crisis’. Both are
politically silent yet are allowing countries, particularly in
arid and semi-arid regions, to sidestep the problem of water
scarcity. However, this paper has also highlighted that
these ‘revolutions’ generated thanks to scientific and
technological innovation should not occur in a vacuum and
it is the responsibility of states and other actors to carefully
assess their full potential and limitations.
It seems clear that the introduction of key concepts like
virtual water and the water footprint have generated new
ways of looking at old problems, like the traditional concept
of food and water security, and the concern that humanity
will shortly be ‘water-stressed’. Trade in virtual water
constitutes a key element in helping to eliminate or at least
soften the global water crisis. However, it is not a panacea.
Methods must be further developed, data have to be
improved and the side effects or unintended consequences
— economic, social, geopolitical and ecological — better
studied.
Most solutions proposed at present for the ‘water crisis’
are ‘hydrocentric’ based on the watershed (BrichieriColombi, 2004). However, as it was discussed above
decisions on the type of crop or on food trade would have
a much higher impact than any decisions to build new large
water infrastructure and improvements in irrigation
efficiency. This leads towards a re-definition of the unit of
analysis away from a pure watershed towards the concept
of the ‘problemshed’ — as defined by Allan (2006). That
is, taking into account that globally approximately 70% of
water is used for agriculture, the decisions on which crops
are grown (and their embedded water use), and which foods
are imported as virtual water, have a substantial impact
on the country’s or catchment’s water budget. Equally,
ignoring the huge boom in groundwater use can only lead
to the mismanagement of a key strategic resource that has
already been instrumental in lifting millions of people out
of poverty, in line with the MDGs. Desalination, although
still out of reach for poor countries, is increasingly
becoming affordable to wealthy farmers and large mega
cities, thus freeing up other traditional water resources like
groundwater for other sectors. Last but not least, the
revolution in information technology (internet, GIS and
remote sensing) can bring much needed transparency and
accountability to a sector that has been traditionally mired
by its problem of water being a natural monopoly and what
this entails (Stalgren, 2006).
The current competition over water resources requires
innovative solutions to old problems. This translates into a
portfolio of appropriate solutions to specific problems,
instead of the old mentality where one size fits all, i.e.,
where water infrastructure was ‘the’ solution to ‘the’
problem of water scarcity. Science and technological
innovation already offer cheap, accessible options to areas
under so-called ‘water-stress’, but like any advancement in
technology and knowledge it has to be grounded in the
equitable and efficient allocation of water.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
References
Allan, A., 2003. Virtual water–the water, food, and trade nexus. Useful
concept or misleading metaphor? Water International, 28(1): 4 –11.
Allan, A., 2006. Virtual water, Part of an invisible synergy that
ameliorates water scarcity. In: Water Crisis: Myth or Reality? Rogers,
P., Llamas, L.R. and Martinez-Cortina, L. (eds), Balkema Publishers.
Allan, A., 2007. Rural economic transitions: Groundwater uses in the
Middle East and its environmental consequences. The Agricultural
Groundwater Revolution: Opportunities and Threats to Development,
CAB International, Cambridge, MA. USA, pp. 63 – 78.
Brichieri-Colombi, J.S., 2004. Hydrocentricity: A limited approach to
achieving food and water security. Water International, 29(3): 318 –
328.
Briscoe, J., 2005. India’s Water Economy: Bracing for a Turbulent Future,
The World Bank: Washington, DC.
Brunel, S., 1989. Geopolitics of Hunger. Press Universitaires de France:
Paris.
Bulkeley, H., Mol, A., 2003. Participation in environmental governance:
Consensus, ambivalence and debate. Environmental Values, 12: 143 –
154.
Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., Savenije, H.H.G., 2005. Saving water
through global trade. Values of Water Research Report Series No. 17,
UNESCO-IHE, Delft: The Netherlands.
Cooley, H., Gleick, P.H., Wolff, G., 2006. Desalination, with a Grain of
Salt: A California Perspective. Oakland, California, Pacific Institute:
88pp.
Coughanowr, C., 1994. Groundwater, Humid Tropics Program Series No.
8. Paris: UNESCO-IHP.
Custodio, E., 2002. Aquifer overexploitation: What does it mean?
Hydrogeology Journal, 10: 254 – 277.
de Fraiture, C., Cai, X., Amarasinghe, U., Rosegrant, M., Molden, D.,
2004. Does international cereal trade save water? The impact of virtual
water trade on global water use Comprehensive Assessment of water
management in agriculture Report 4, Sri Lanka: IWMI.
Elwood, S., 2006. Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstruction,
reconstruction and new research directions. Transactions in GIS,
10(5): 693–708.
Foster, S., Lawrence, A., Morris, B., 1998. Groundwater in urban
development. Assessing management needs and reformulating policy
strategies. World Bank Technical Paper No. 390, The World Bank:
Washington, DC.
Fornés, J.M., d. l. Hera, A., Llamas, M.R., 2005. The silent revolution in
groundwater intensive use and its influence in Spain. Water Policy,
7(3): 253–268.
Giordano, M., Villholth, K., 2007. The Agricultural Groundwater
Revolution: Opportunities and Threats to Development. Oxford: CAB
International.
Global Water Intelligence, 2007. Desalination Report 2007, London:
GWI.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Hung, P.Q., 2002. Virtual water trade: A quantification of
virtual water flows between nations in relation to international food
trade. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 11. UNESCO-IHE,
Delft: The Netherlands.
Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., 2006. Water footprints of nations: Water
use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water
Resources Management, 21(1): 35 – 48.
Hofwegen, P., 2004. World Trade-Conscious Choices, Synthesis of E-mail
Conference on Virtual World Trade and Geopolitics.
Innes, J., Booher, D., 2000. Public participation in planning: New
strategies for the 21st century. Working Paper 2000-07, University of
California: Berkeley.
Kemper, K., 2004. Preface: Groundwater from development to
management. Hydrogeology Journal, 12(1).
Koundouri, P., 2004. Current issues in the economics of groundwater
resource management, Journal of Economic Surveys, 18(5): 704 – 740.
Llamas, M.R., 2005a. Los Colores del Agua, El Agua Virtual y los
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
237
conflictos Hídricos. Discurso Inaugural del Curso 2005/2006. Revista
de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas.
Llamas, M.R., 2005. Groundwater and human development. In:
Groundwater and Human Development. Bocanegra, E.M., Usunoff, E.,
Hernandez, M. (eds). Balkema Publishing Co.: Dordrecht, Holland.
Llamas, M.R., 2006b. Avances científicos y cambios en viejos paradigmas
sobre la politica del agua, Revista Empresa y Humanismo, IX(2): 67–
108.
Llamas, M.R., Custodio, E., 2003. Intensive Use of Groundwater:
Challenges and Opportunities. Balkema Publishing Co.: Dordrecht,
Holland.
Llamas, M.R., Martínez-Santos, P., 2005a. Ethical issues in relation to
intensive groundwater use. In: Sahuquillo and Martinez-Cortina,
(eds), Selected Papers on Intensive Use of Groundwater (SINEX),
Balkema Publishing Co.: Dordrecht, Holland: 17 – 36.
Llamas, M.R., Martínez-Santos, P., 2005b. Intensive groundwater use:
Silent revolution and potential source of social conflicts. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management. American Society of
Civil Engineers, September/October: 337 – 341.
López-Gunn, E., Llamas, M.R., 2000. New and old paradigms in Spain’s
water policy. Water Security in the Third Millennium: Mediterranean
Countries Towards a Regional Vision. UNESCO U. S. F. P. Series, 9:
271– 293.
Lowndess, V., Pratchett, L., Stoker, G., 2001. Trends in public
participation: Part 2 — Citizens. Public Administration, 79(2): 445–
566.
McCann, B., 2007. Lessons from Australia’s resource rationale, Water 21:
magazine of the International Water Association: 18 – 20.
Moench, M., 2003. Groundwater and poverty: Exploring the connections.
In: Llamas, M.R., Custodio, E. (eds) Intensive Use of Groundwater:
Challenges and Opportunities, Balkema Publishing Co.: Dordrecht,
Holland.
Morris, B.L., Lawrence, A.R.L., Chilton, P.J.C., Adams, B., Calow, R.C.,
Klinck, B.A., 2003. Groundwater and its susceptibility to degradation.
A global assessment of the problem and options for management.
Early Warning and Assessment Report Series, RS. 03-3. Nairobi,
Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme/DEWA.
Myers, N., Kent, J., 1998. Perverse Subsidies. Winnipeg, Canada:
International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Polak, P., 2005. Water and the other three revolutions needed to end rural
poverty. Water Science and Technology, 8: 133 –146.
Ramírez-Vallejo, J., 2006. Virtual water: Comments on Allan’s article.
In: Rogers, P., Llamas, M.R., and Martinez-Cortina, L. (eds). Water
Crisis: Myth or Reality. London: Taylor and Francis Group: 151–162.
Rogers, P., Ramírez-Vallejo, V., 2003. Water in the world. The effects of
agricultural trade liberalization on the water economy of nations.
Madrid: International Water Resources Association Congress.
Rogers, P., Llamas, M.R., Martínez-Cortina, L., 2006. Foreword. In:
Rogers, P. et al. (eds) Water Crisis: Myth or Reality? London: Taylor
and Francis Group.
Service, R., 2006. Desalination freshens up, Science, 313: 1088 –1090.
Shah, T., 2005. Groundwater and human development: Challenges and
opportunities in livelihoods and environment. Water Science and
Technology, 8: 27 – 37.
Shah, T., Singh, O.P., Mukherji, A., 2006. Some aspects of South Asia’s
groundwater economy: Analyses of a survey in India, Pakistan, Nepal
Terai and Bangladesh. Hydrogeology Journal, 14: 286 – 304.
Shah, T., Burke, J., Villholth, K., 2007. Groundwater: A global
assessment of scale and significance. In: Molden, D. et al., Water
for Food, Water for Life: A comprehensive assessment. London:
IWMI/Earthscan.
Stalgren, P., 2006. Corruption in the water sector: Causes, consequences
and potential reform. Policy Brief No. 4. Swedish Water House, SIWI.
United Nations, 2003. Water for People. Water for Life. World Water
Assessment Programme, UNESCO: 576 pp.
United Nations, 2006. Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global
water crisis. Human Development Report 2006. New York: UNDP.
238
Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas / Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008) 228–238
UNESCO-WWAP, 2006. Water — a shared responsibility. UN World
Water Development Report 2, New York: UN.
Voutchkov, N., 2007. California turns to the ocean. Water 21: Magazine
of the International Water Association: 22 – 24.
Wegerich, K., 2006. Groundwater institutions and management problems
in the developing world. In: Tellam (ed) Urban Groundwater
Management and Sustainability, Holland: Springer, pp. 447 –
458.
Williams, D., 2004. The policy relevance of virtual water can be enhanced
by considering comparative advantages. Agricultural Water
Management, 66: 49 – 63.
Zimmer, D., Renault, D., 2003. Virtual water in food production and
global trade: Review of methodological issues and preliminary results.
Proceedings of the International Expert meeting on Virtual Water
Trade, Value of Water-Research Rapport Series, no. 12. The
Netherlands: Delft, UNESCO-IHE: 93 –109.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 United Nations.
Natural Resources Forum 33 (2009) 97
Original
xxxx
Article
Blackwell
Oxford,
Natural
NARF
©
1477-8947
0165-0203
XXX
2009 The
Resources
UK
Publishing
Author.Forum
Journal
Ltd compilation © 2009 United Nations.
Corrigenda
In Natural Resources Forum 32 (2008), 228–239, ‘Re-thinking water scarcity: Can science and technology solve the global
water crisis?’ by Elena Lopez-Gunn and Manuel Ramón Llamas:
Page 229, column 1, line 5: ‘110,000 Mm3’ should have been ‘110,000 km3’.
Page 230, column 2, paragraph 4: ‘7,500 Mm3’, ‘1,500 Mm3’ and ‘115,000 Mm3’ should have been ‘7,500 km3’,
‘1,500 km3’ and ‘115,000 km3’ respectively.
Page 232; column 1, paragraph 1: ‘950–1000 Mm3’, ‘900 Mm3’ and ‘200 Mm3’ should have been ‘950–1000 km3’,
‘900 km3’ and ‘200 km3’ respectively.
© 2009 The Author. Journal compilation © 2009 United Nations